McGraw-Edison Co. v. United States

I respectfully dissent for the following reasons: The majority opinion states: “We have no way of knowing whether and to what extent plaintiff in fact violated the Act, and trial of that issue would obviously defeat the very purpose of the compromise.” [emphasis supplied] I have no quarrel with this statement. As a matter of fact, I completely agree, especially in view of the *457finding and the statement in the majority-opinion that the plaintiff compromised “primarily with the objective of avoiding the risks, and the expense, inconvenience and other disruptive consequences of litigation.”

From…